She's had a career as a model, in which her job was exclusively to look pretty - a job in which she can no longer do as effectively; and the image was used in a popular and award winning series. If they had bothered to pay to use the image in the first place, they'd be in the clear. By not paying for the use of the image, they're dismissing the work that photographers, make-up artists, and models do (Exaggerated to get the point across).

I think patents for the sake of later suing businesses looking to innovate are much worse, and putting a stranglehold on free market. As well as petty stuff like "I burnt my hand on this coffee!" and "this food made me fat!", but that goes without saying.

At 3/5/13 12:48 AM, Xenomit wrote:
3. I just have a severe hatred for frivolous lawsuits. If you or a family member hasn't been physically harmed in any way, there's no real reason to sue other than just pure greed.

At 3/5/13 12:48 AM, Xenomit wrote:
3. I just have a severe hatred for frivolous lawsuits. If you or a family member hasn't been physically harmed in any way, there's no real reason to sue other than just pure greed.

What about theft?

Theft is something different, I haven't heard of many people suing because of theft

If your life hasn't been disrupted in any way, you have no reason to sue other than you're just a greedy wad

At 3/5/13 01:05 AM, Xenomit wrote:
If your life hasn't been disrupted in any way, you have no reason to sue other than you're just a greedy wad

Define: 'disrupted'.

In terms of Law, things have to be extremely well defined. So first it's not okay to sue unless you've been physically harmed, now it's only if your life has been disrupted? Okay so lets say I'm going for a walk and there's a pothole in the pavement. I now have to step around said pothole, so my journey has been disrupted. Suppose since my journey was part of my life and it was disrupted that counts right?

Law does have to be really specific due to loopholes and what have you, but I was just being general because I didn't feel like creating actual guidelines

Considerable physical injury that requires medical attention from a professional practitioner. Requires.

Considerable emotional injury that leads to the need of therapy. This one would probably be cut from any official guidelines due to the fact that anyone could claim to have suffered major emotional damage.

Lots of others, I can't be bothered to think up any more. You get the point though (I hope), anything that isn't blatantly dumb and obviously just for greed. Like in the case of this woman. She's 71 years old and has not been injured in any way by lionsgate, she just wants money for the sake of having money, which kills capitalism. Which in turn makes me mad.

Sad to see the thread become a piss war. Especially when the topic was going in an interesting direction.

Is there any way to truly stop "bad" lawsuits in its tracks? Isn't the outcome of the situation really for the judge to decide, and thus the ability to discourage future frivolous lawsuits lies in the judges powers and the guidelines they operate within?